Posted on 03/31/2018 7:52:42 AM PDT by rey
Homeless advocates filed a lawsuit Friday to block Sonoma County and Santa Rosa from shutting down the two large encampments that have grown in southwest Santa Rosa, arguing that forcing people out of their camps without providing an acceptable alternative would be unconstitutional.
The county has given homeless people until Tuesday to leave the two tent villages on Sonoma County Community Development Commission land behind the Dollar Tree store in Roseland.
The suit sets up a high-profile showdown between homeless advocates, who argue that local governments are doing too little to help people in need, and agencies that say they are trying to provide housing for the homeless but must close the camps because of safety concerns and future plans for the site.
“We’re not saying that everyone needs to stay there forever,” said Jeffery Hoffman, with California Rural Legal Assistance in Santa Rosa. “What we’re saying is we need to figure out a way to accommodate everybody in a fashion that works.”
A tent village originally took root on the site in 2015. The number of residents has grown to about 100 people since Santa Rosa began clearing out other long-time homeless camps and the October wildfires ravaged parts of the city.
ounty officials want to clear out the camps to move forward with a redevelopment project that envisions a 175-unit apartment complex, a public plaza and more. In advance of the shutdown, the county has been operating a housing navigation center on the property in an effort to find housing and other services for the residents.
But the lawsuit filed Friday contends those efforts have been insufficient, especially when it comes to people with disabilities. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco by a group of attorneys with experience representing the powerless.
(Excerpt) Read more at pressdemocrat.com ...
Reminds me of something the curmudgeon Mike Royko once said. He was wondering what happened to all the bums, rummies, soaks, etc. and then he found out they are now “homeless”.
“Why do we just take it as axiomatic that it is the government’s job to “help people in need?” “
The general welfare clause, of course. When I read this, I thought that was what it was going to be about, but cruel and unusual? Give me a break.
What’s infuriating is people being kicked out of viable homes because of the fire and off of land that has been federalized (Sea shore) and yet you may stay indefinitely in a homeless camp.
Why don’t the people filing these cases on behalf of the homeless take the homeless to their houses. I don’t see them offering their yards to be used as encampments.
[[arguing that forcing people out of their camps without providing an acceptable alternative would be unconstitutional.]]
Where in the constitution does it say that able bodied people can freeload off the government and live rent free wherever they choose?
Apparently “Homeless Advocates” advocate for keeping the homeless, homeless.
Recently I’ve reread a lot of Steinbeck classics.
Great writer.
It being public property (if, indeed, that should be the case) is irrelevant.
Or are you saying that squatting in the middle of a public thoroughfare, in a municipal park, a public playground, the front lawn of a public high school, etc. is somehow "less impactful" and should therefore be tolerated?
No, I didn't think that you did.
Regards,
Modern day, “Hoovervilles”?
Just what, exactly, do "homeless advocates" do? Do they help the homeless, or do they just advocate (run their mouths) on behalf of the homeless.
Who filed the lawsuit - the "advocates?" If so, do they have standing?
What Constitution are they filing this under? I don’t recognize anything of the US Constitution here.
When I was 5 or 6 we lived in an apartment camp right beside a huge field and railroad tracks ran right behind the apartments. We played in the field and constantly ran into, talked to, and a few even fed us , what our parents called hobos. They would hop off the train at the field, camp out overnight, and move on.
These people are not the same as the old time hobos.
“Homeless” = drug addict. Riding the bike trail between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol is like running the gauntlet - tents, abandoned bicycles, easy chairs, shopping carts, discarded blankets, baby strollers loaded with trash, milk crates, cardboard boxes, clothing...
Gramps on his way to school would go past a small camp and he’d wind up giving them his lunch sandwiches. You’re right, a different breed than today’s.
I can imagine. Like I said.....these people are not the same as the old time hobos.
Hollywood is nice this time of year.
And add: Freeloader. Homeless person is a PC term. George Carlin had said it better - they’re ‘house-less’ everyone has a home, you just need a house to put it in.
A meal warehouse on the edge of town. They can’t burn it. Give them free booze-the hard stuff. At least they won’t be a nuisance.
Just what you need. A bunch of drunks urinating and defecating right there. Well at least it’d be contained unlike what they do in SF.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.